Vivid says no to porn

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

Oh boy. What a shock someone comes to the "I can do whatever I want" mentality and say they have zero responibility as a webmaster. Crap like that is why politicians and parents hate us.

That's unfair, irresponsible, and simply not true.
A: I WAS a politician. They don't hate the adult industry, they see it as generating votes.
B: I don't have zero responsibility. I don't hide behind fake names, fake avatars, and layers of corporate identity. I've been on the front lines of the adult industry since may 20, 1985. The day I opened my first video store with an adult section that drew the ire and attack of the local government.
So, get back to me after you've been around a while, and actually defended free speech on the front lines.
Even now, I'm embroiled in a local government fight to build our new factory. It created a new ordinance, in a town that only makes about 6 ordinances a year.

So spare me from your "qualified evaluation."
Fortunately, there are those that would stand up for what you pay lip service to.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

That's unfair, irresponsible, and simply not true.
A: I WAS a politician. They don't hate the adult industry, they see it as generating votes.

Thus as I talked about earlier if you give them a solution that will actually help parents and put some responsibility on webmasters a politician will listen. They like "wins" and getting some sort of agreement that helps parents and puts some obligation on webmasters is a win.

B: I don't have zero responsibility. I don't hide behind fake names, fake avatars, and layers of corporate identity. I've been on the front lines of the adult industry since may 20, 1985. The day I opened my first video store with an adult section that drew the ire and attack of the local government.
So, get back to me after you've been around a while, and actually defended free speech on the front lines.
Even now, I'm embroiled in a local government fight to build our new factory. It created a new ordinance, in a town that only makes about 6 ordinances a year.

So spare me from your "qualified evaluation."
Fortunately, there are those that would stand up for what you pay lip service to.

ROFLMFAO!!

Adult webmasters have ZERO responsibility as it stands now. None. Minors can come and go to their sites as they please and a webmaster doesn't have to do squat. Since you seem to own an offline store you have MORE responsibility than webmasters do with that store or stores than all webmasters do with any of their sites. I'm glad that you stand up for your rights but don't sit there and pretend that webmasters are burdened in any way to keep minors out of their sites. In terms of keeping minors out webmasters don't have to do squat. Making them use a tag that the END USER has to implement is NOT censorship. It's akin to having an empoyee/bouncer who cards people and keeps minor out in the stores you own.

I've always enjoyed you and your posts here but you can take your "You don't care about the 1st amendment" spiel and stick it where the sun don't shine. So I guess that Michael from Adult Biz Law doesn't care about the 1st amendment either when he said he agreed with an end user approach too then?

Quote:

Absolutely. As long as it was only used by the end user.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[pornlaw]

Making them use a tag that the END USER has to implement is NOT censorship. It's akin to having an empoyee/bouncer who cards people and keeps minor out in the stores you own.

This is were your analogy fails. The bouncer is employed by the establishment not by someone else. He listens to the person that signs his check.

In your analogy, that TAG is not an employee of the establishment, but rather could easily be a police officer or FBI agent standing at the door, telling everyone that they cannot enter.

Would you allow a law enforcement officer to guard your establish and determine freely who could and could not enter ? Thats what you MAY get if you require tags on websites.

Mandatory filtering is never going to fly.

That's the whole argument behind why .XXX died. It could easily be filtered.

So I suppose you were/are an ardent supporter of .XXX. Well at least I now know that I met one. Unlike the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot and UFOs, I guess they do exist.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

This is were your analogy fails. The bouncer is employed by the establishment not by someone else. He listens to the person that signs his check.

In your analogy, that TAG is not an employee of the establishment, but rather could easily be a police officer or FBI agent standing at the door, telling everyone that they cannot enter.

Would you allow a law enforcement officer to guard your establish and determine freely who could and could not enter ? Thats what you MAY get if you require tags on websites.

Mandatory filtering is never going to fly.

That's the whole argument behind why .XXX died. It could easily be filtered.

So I suppose you were/are an ardent supporter of .XXX. Well at least I now know that I met one. Unlike the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot and UFOs, I guess they do exist.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

Yea! What HE said!

Let the battle of the Lawyers begin!
(Is somebody being billed for this? I vote you bill enforcer for the billable hours, since he thinks we should go to extra trouble and expense to "save the neighbor's chill'ins....")

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

This is were your analogy fails. The bouncer is employed by the establishment not by someone else. He listens to the person that signs his check.

In your analogy, that TAG is not an employee of the establishment, but rather could easily be a police officer or FBI agent standing at the door, telling everyone that they cannot enter.

Would you allow a law enforcement officer to guard your establish and determine freely who could and could not enter ? Thats what you MAY get if you require tags on websites.

Mandatory filtering is never going to fly.

That's the whole argument behind why .XXX died. It could easily be filtered.

So I suppose you were/are an ardent supporter of .XXX. Well at least I now know that I met one. Unlike the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot and UFOs, I guess they do exist.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

No, I was not an ardent supporter of .XXX.... Sheesh, way to make assumptions dude.. I CLEARLY stated that what I would like to see is all adult webmasters have to have tags on their sites but that only the end user, parents, could use the tags to filter. Also, your anaolgy is severely flawed as I clearly only want the END USER, specifically parents, to be able to use the tag. Not the government, not local law enfocement, not the local ISP, but parents on their home computers only. All of a sudden you contradict yourself from what you stated and agreed with earlier? You agreed that would be fine and now all of a sudden you want to change your mind? Either you have a reading comprehension problem or you shift your arguements based on which way you think the wind blows.

[ali25extreme]

Parents Should Pay More Attention To What Their Kids Are Doing In The First Place..they Use Entertainment As A Baby Sitter And Later Ask Why Their Kids Are Looking At This Stuff!!